Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jaguar

Jaguar
I found this article in so-so shape nearly a month ago and have since greatly expanded it. It weighs in at 35k, which I think a good size for this topic, and has forty refs with dozens of individual citations. The refs mix general interest pages with academic/veterinary work and I think just about everything is covered at the right level of detail. I have yet to find the ideal section structure for a large mammal page; of FAs Tasmanian Devil strikes me as underweight, while I think Gray Wolf is over-specific. I hope the TOC strikes a balance between browsability and specificity. Cheers all, Marskell 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in knowing how fast a jaguar can run and how long/high it can jump. Fredrik Johansson 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fredrik, those specific stats haven't caught my eye yet, but would indeed be interesting. I'll see if I can find them (tomorrow, at this point)—but, to give myself an excuse in advance ;), this is an under-studied beast. I'm not sure if "in the wild" measurements are available for those points. Marskell 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support The information is exactly what I'd expect for this type of article, while maintaining clear concise prose. The article is well organized and the images a perfect. It is also very well referenced with appropriate citations. You've done an excellent job over the past month. Jay32183 18:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support ditto. Rlevse 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support excellent article. Joelito (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * support --Pedro 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The prose in this article is compelling and concise. The lead section of this article is also precise to the point. On top of that, the images used here are acceptable copyright status in nature with clear captions. The article also has a proper system of hierarchical headings. Lastly the article presents views which are fair and without bias. The references used here are superb as well. To conlude, it meets all the criterias for a Featured article. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, on the quality of sources; lots of cites doesn't mean quality information. Much of the stuff is referenced to web sources which are obviously not primary sources and many of which do not cite their own sources, including animal diversity web (written by students), the singapore zoo, the carnivore preservation trust (written by a student, no sources), the jaguar species survival plan (it would be better to track down and cite the papers referred to in this work), tigerhomes.org, Encarta, BBC etc. One good book source of a few papers could probably replace all of these dubious sources.--Peta 02:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So basically there isn't a single source you find reliable? If you find the jaguar species survival plan inappropriate, I really don't what to say. The "Guidlelines," is written by professionals, for professionals, as near as I can tell, and each of its sections has an extensive bibliography. I think it's an ideal secondary source.
 * Further, I've been labouring under the impression Wiki is a tertiary source. WP:RS: "A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources." Honestly, you feel we shouldn't use zoos to describe animals? I think it a bad idea to turn to primary sources only, as you risk writing a research paper of your own, which Wikipedians should not be in the business of doing.
 * That said, I used the generic stuff a little more early in the writing; I can certainly try to eliminate those written by students. Marskell 05:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia without the limitation of paper, I think we should make all attempts to use and provide reliable sources and the most reliable sources for a science article are often original research. I think consulting orignal research is necesary for two reasons, first using a doubtful source leads to the case where the blind may be leading the blind and consulting (any) non-web sources certainly adds to the credability of a wikipedia article and second, the people that did the research deserve acknowledgement. I often use web sources when writing for Wikipedia, but I try and confirm as much as possible with a print source.--Peta 05:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Object —1a: the prose needs cleaning up. For example, in the lead:
 * "It is the third largest feline after the lion and tiger and the largest and most powerful in the Western Hemisphere"—referent in the second clause is unclear ("largest and most powerful" could refer to three singular nouns, and our readers shouldn't have to pause for half a second to disambiguate).
 * "Physically, the spotted cat most closely resembles the leopard although behavioural and habitat characteristics are more akin to the tiger." False comparison: "to those of the tiger". Please consider inserting a comma before "although". "Its" is required before "behavioural".
 * "The jaguar is a largely solitary, stalk and ambush predator, hunting a wide range of game over a variety of terrain. Dense jungle is its preferred habitat and it is notable, along with tiger, as a feline which enjoys water. "—Unless you're really trying to minimise hyphens, consider "stalk-and-ambush predator"—easier to read. But the more serious problem is that the ideas are not smoothly integrated into these sentences; in particular, the fact that its preferred habitat is dense jungle, and that even so, it does hunt in a variety of terrains, needs to be logically presented. Try: "The jaguar is a largely solitary, stalk-and-ambush predator; although dense jungle is its preferred habitat, it hunts in a variety of terrains and preys on a wide range of game. Along with tiger, it is notable among felines for its predisposition to swimming." I'm not sure I got the last bit right, but as it was, you wonder whether it means "enjoys drinking water".
 * "piercing directly through the skull of prey between the ears and delivering a fatal blow to the brain; its bite is thus exceptionally powerful". Better as "piercing from the ears inwards, directly through the skull of its prey"? "Thus" is a logical problem: its bite is not exceptionally powerful because it bites into the skull; just the opposite—its exceptionally powerful bite allows it to bite into the skull. I don't like a piercing described as a "blow".
 * The paragraphing of the lead is not well organised: paras two and three both discuss predation.

Can you find copy-editors in your area to go through the whole text? Tony 05:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of numbering your points.
 * I thought the initial pronoun would be clear in referring to both, as "New World" and "Western Hemishphere" are synonymous. However, I changed it.
 * Agreed, changed to suggested.
 * Agreed, reworked.
 * "Betweeen the ears" directly mimics the source, as I recall. I'll double check. This is a bit chicken-and-egg: as it evolved, the killing method would have demanded the powerful bite, while the powerful bite would have allowed for the killing method. I flipped the two points around, noting it "has developed" the bite, which "allows for..."
 * Actually there was no third paragraph. Per point 3, I've created one and tried to deal with habitat first and then predation. Obviously, with a predator, its hard to discuss anything without referring to predation!
 * Any further comments on the body welcome. Marskell 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave the whole thing a copyedit, fixing a number of sentence structure issues. --RobthTalk 03:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Some inconsistencies and niggles worry me.
 * The range map and description of range to not match up. The map clearly shows no jaguars in Argentina or Paraguay, the text states they are there.
 * "Reproduction and life cycle" The text jumps from birth to leaving the mother with no information on what happens in between. Do they have multiple dens (like leapards) do the young follow the mother to learn hunting skills (like cheetahs) do the mothers bring prey for them to learn to kill, do other animals eat the young (lions eat leopard young), how many cubs usually make it to the point of leaving the mother? Breeding success and the rasing of young is an imporntant section at it's kind of weak here.
 * Multiple instances of panthera which I turned into Panthera. I sometimes get binomials wrong due to typos but the error seemed to happen a lot.
 * I'm sure that the prehistoric range of the jaguar included Florida, and possibly included other areas too.
 * The jaguar is considered a stalk and ambush, rather than a chase, predator.  Surely it is a stalk and ambush predator, rather than is considered one.
 * "Ecological Role" A related concept is "umbrella species": a species whose home range and habitat requirements are sufficiently broad that if protected numerous other species of smaller range will also be protected. Belongs in conservation, don't you think?
 * "Ecological role" only the massive anaconda snake is considered able to prey upon the cat. Either they can, and it's been reported that they can (so include it) or they maybe can but no one is sure (so leave it out). In either case no need for the are considered.

This is from a brief scan. Peta's comments on the cites, incidentally, also bothers me slightly. You may not need to go to primary sources (though I frequently do as they are often way better than secondary ones) but choosing good secondary sources is important. Even secondary sources from reasonably reputable places are often riddled with silly or basic errors. A selection of good texts on cat biology and jaguar ecology are prefereable to lots of websites like those that Peta derided. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I numbered these as well.
 * Agreed there is a gap, which I'll try to repair.
 * Thanks, I was inconsistent.
 * I haven't seen that mentioned in the refs, but will look again.
 * Indeed.
 * Actually, I think it makes sense here. Its status as an "umbrella" species speaks directly to its ecological role. There is some over-lap between these two. At one point, I had conservation status as a level three under ecology, which can be done again.
 * Very hard to track this down. Searching, you often get message boards dealing with topics like "could the jaguar kill a croc if both were on SmackDown!!" :). I'm hiding it pending a good source.
 * Regarding the sources generally, I'll post again replying to both you and Peta. Marskell 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your numbering and the numbering you gave me don't match up (I renumbered as you missed a question also). But in reply to the umbrella species reply - NO NO NO! "Umbrella species" is not part of its natural ecological role or even an ecological role - its a conservation role that protects the ecology. And threats and conservation (or whatever you call it) is best as a level three under relationship with humans (or whatever you call that bit) not ecology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your numbering and the numbering you gave me don't match up (I renumbered as you missed a question also). But in reply to the umbrella species reply - NO NO NO! "Umbrella species" is not part of its natural ecological role or even an ecological role - its a conservation role that protects the ecology. And threats and conservation (or whatever you call it) is best as a level three under relationship with humans (or whatever you call that bit) not ecology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a conservation concept applied over-top of its ecological role—it's not divorced from ecology in the way, say, flagship species is. However, I see your argument and I'll try to move it. Do you mind striking those as we go? Marskell 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I analyzed the refs more fully here. Marskell 10:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I moved three long posts regarding the nature of referencing to the talk, so this page doesn't seem like a long-rather-not-bother read for people stopping to look at it. I don't want to be seen to be rm'ing critical commentary, and if someone wants to post it back up, no problem. It was basically just me letting things get sidetracked. Updates:
 * I have moved the "umbrella species" to conservation status per above.
 * I have hidden the map, which is indeed off mark. I've pulled it into photoshop and will try to tweak it myself. Marskell 12:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a full copy-edit of the article, and I noted the good work already done by Robth and others. A few queries:
 * Please check my change of wording WRT the spots/rosettes.
 * Seems fine.


 * The bit about "The cat will mate throughout the year" is a little jumbled: statement is immediately repeated in greater detail, with different references.
 * I made one in the wild and the other in captivity, to create a distinction bw the sentences.


 * Reference for hybridisation? (Even though it's linked.)
 * I can pull out one of the sources from the other page, but then the web-links are dubious (don't think it's made up because of the pics and all, but it's messybeasts.com...)


 * Males use the urinary scent of other males to locate females? That's what it says, so just checking.
 * I altered to describe the behaviour in terms of females advertising themselves (as opposed to jumbling both sexes into the sentence).


 * Infanticide: I'm sure (from general knowledge) that male lions do this too. Worth mentioning and referencing?
 * Male lions may, AFAIK, kill infants if they assume the leadership of the pride but the comparison isn't totally apt because the females must "tolerate" the males given their social structure; the source specifically refers to the tiger as being an important for comparison.


 * "It may hunt during ..." (both sexes? It doesn't say. Wondering whether females hunt.)
 * Yes, both sexes--they live alone after all :). Changed.


 * The difference between the sexes in the age of sexual maturity: just why male competition for reproductive advantage should be the cause is not explained.
 * Grr. I'm going to hide this until I can find a good source. I read it in one of the general interest links, but I'm trying not to use those for hard facts. Marskell 09:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Obj. withdrawn. Tony 14:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly Tony. I have noted your objections and will notify when I think they are corrected. Marskell 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I never objected, but all my concerns have been addressed (including refs) except the care of young bit. Much improved, and almost there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn Sabine, I've been looking and looking and I can't find anything that hints at describing care for the young. The closest I can find is birth in captivity and hand-rearing. The FAC is still young though, so I'll let you know if and when I find it. Marskell 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess if no information exists it is an unreasonable reason to withhold support. But keep looking anyway. I'm sure it's there somewhere. Oh, and it's Sunbird. Sabine is my owner/namer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, though I suggest another proof-read. The opening paragraph refered to the animal as 'tiger'; I fixed it and gave a brief read-through, but I have to wonder if any other niggling errors crept in.  Matt Deres 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an odd one. It was copy-edited twice yesterday and the error was actually introduced at the point. Thx. Marskell 08:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support well-written article. Refer to other support comments. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:07 (UTC)
 * Support references look good now. Nice and comprehensive and easy to read. Cas Liber 06:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note on references. They remain around 40 in total, but have increased in quality. Of the six dubious sources Peta mentioned, five have been removed (Encarta remains to describe a jaguar hauling a cow across a river). I have left the Guidelines as is, but more specific points are taking more specific references, with primary sources from 8 to 12 (many thanks to Peta for passing some along). I'm going to continue to tweak this, but I think the reference concern has essentially been met. Marskell 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what I don't like about using other teritary sources, how do we know that the mention in Encarta is supported by fact since they don't cite their own sources- isn't there some thing more verifiable to show that they can swim a long way?--Peta 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Encarta lists the academics who worked on the piece, and I would actually call it reliable (just). There is another bit I can use on the swimming, yes. Marskell 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Encarta gone. Also tracked down a research name I was seeing a lot to work in another primary paper. Marskell 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * support Fantastic work. I see no reason why we can't dub this a FA at this point, even while more work is being done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)